200,000 Year old Man Found

[newnan man]

For what it's worth this is a supposedly fossil footprint of a dinosaur and a human footprint. Some say it was carved, others say it's genuine. There are several other similar fossil foit prints of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time. Interesting.

 

[Red-Coat]

Also, for what it's worth... from Wiki:

The "Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint", allegedly a human footprint partially overlapped by an Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur footprint, found when a slab supposedly taken from Glen Rose was later cleaned up. The footprint is presented as representing Homo bauanthropus, a species name coined by Baugh [Carl Baugh, the young Earth creationist] but not recognized by anyone else. Biologist PZ Myers described it as a blatant fake. The "human print has toes like tubes and a weirdly dug-in big toe", while "the dino print is even worse — it’s basically a three-pronged flat plate" with no resemblance to a real dinosaur footprint. Kuban [independent researcher Glen J. Kuban] described anatomical problems in detail. He notes that the slab was not documented in situ, and there are significant issues with CT scans claimed to authenticate the slab. Other creationists have not supported the claims, and one of those originally promoting the slab has removed the information from his website.

 

[robertk]

For what it's worth this is a supposedly fossil footprint of a dinosaur and a human footprint. Some say it was carved, others say it's genuine.

Just remember that everyone has their beliefs, even scientists, and it is a rare person who will proclaim findings contrary to those beliefs. Investigators most often find exactly what they expect to.

 

[newnan man]

Also, for what it's worth... from Wiki:

The "Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint", allegedly a human footprint partially overlapped by an Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur footprint, found when a slab supposedly taken from Glen Rose was later cleaned up. The footprint is presented as representing Homo bauanthropus, a species name coined by Baugh [Carl Baugh, the young Earth creationist] but not recognized by anyone else. Biologist PZ Myers described it as a blatant fake. The "human print has toes like tubes and a weirdly dug-in big toe", while "the dino print is even worse — it’s basically a three-pronged flat plate" with no resemblance to a real dinosaur footprint. Kuban [independent researcher Glen J. Kuban] described anatomical problems in detail. He notes that the slab was not documented in situ, and there are significant issues with CT scans claimed to authenticate the slab. Other creationists have not supported the claims, and one of those originally promoting the slab has removed the information from his website.

I read all that info as well. There are many researchers and articles such as my post that contradict each other. I have no opinion either way. I do know for decades many esteemed archeological researchers promoted the "Clovis First" theory. They lambasted and ridiculed any archeologist who dared suggest they had evidence to the contrary, to the point of ruining peoples careers. Clovis First is now thoroughly debunked and evidence abounds to prove it was incorrect.

 

[coast40]